Policyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/11490/all
enUS Chamber Predicts Economic Apocalypse From New Carbon Rules Despite Opposite Realityhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/04/us-chamber-predicts-economic-apocalypse-new-carbon-rules
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/uschamberlogo.jpg?itok=l0MoTJsf" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It has been less than a week since the <span class="caps">EPA</span> announced new rules for carbon emissions — rules that are being heralded as the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/02/3443593/obama-historic-action-on-climate-change/">most comprehensive effort to tackle climate change</a> by any sitting <span class="caps">U.S.</span> president — but big business groups have been spreading misinformation about these new rules for weeks.</p>
<p>Leading the charge against the administration’s proposals is the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce, the largest business interest group in the country, and arguably the most well-funded. </p>
<p>Just days before the new rules that will limit the amount of carbon that existing power plants can release were made public, the <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf">Chamber released a report</a> predicting that any form of carbon regulation would result in economic chaos for the United States. And this <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/28/3442314/chamber-of-commerce-epa-carbon-study/">all happened before</a> the Chamber even know what the rules would actually say.</p>
<p>The Chamber’s report issued these dire warnings to Americans, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/28/3442314/chamber-of-commerce-epa-carbon-study/">summarized by Think Progress</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Their study determined that it would cost American industry $28.1 billion annually to comply with <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s new regulations, that as many as 224,000 jobs would be lost between now and 2030, that the economy would average $50.2 billion lower a year, that Americans would cumulatively pay $289 billion more for electricity over that period, and that they’d lose $586 billion in disposable income.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber is attempting to strike at the heart of American fears that it will cost them dearly. Whether it is their job or their hard-earned money, the Chamber wants Americans to be afraid of losing everything they’ve worked so hard to achieve in life.</p>
<p>Back in the land of reality, the Chamber’s claims are easily debunked. To start with, as <a href="http://desmogblog.com/death-talking-point-regulations-actually-create-jobs">we’ve previously discussed here on DeSmogBlog</a>, safety regulations create jobs rather than destroy them. Even <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367539/american-electric-power-ceo-epa-regulations-will-create-new-jobs/">energy industry <span class="caps">CEO</span>s have been willing to admit</a> that this is true in recent years. The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s estimates show that the new standards will <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">create tens of thousands of new jobs</a>, and the administration’s commitment to invest more in renewable energy will add hundreds of thousands of jobs, thus resulting in a net gain of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> jobs.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>As for the cost of the new standards, the Chamber tells us that the economy will lose $50 billion a year, while American families will lose $586 billion in disposable income while paying an additional $289 billion in utility fees each year. They have <a href="http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf">offered absolutely no evidence</a> to back up these claims, and that is likely due to the fact that the evidence doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EPA</span> estimates that the new standards will <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">cost the industry around $8 billion</a> — a one time cost to bring their plants up to code. That is decisively less than the more than $1 trillion price tag that the Chamber put on the new standards. <br /><br />
You also have to factor in the amount of money saved by the new standards. It is estimated that the new standards will be saving the American economy <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-plants-30percent-by-2030/2014/06/01/f5055d94-e9a8-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html">as much as $30 billion a year</a> by the date of full implementation in 2030. <br /><br />
As for hurting the economy, White House spokesman <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs">Jay Carney said</a>, “The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has been protecting air quality in the United States for more than 40 years, and in that time we've cut pollution by 70 percent and the economy has tripled in size.”</p>
<p>The Chamber certainly doesn’t expect the public to look for the facts in the matter; they just want them to take their word for it. But what the Chamber <em>really</em> didn’t count on was that the businesses they represent would be so embarrassed by the group’s report. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444143/member-companies-chamber-climate/">From Think Progress</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">While not addressing the specific issue, <span class="caps">UPS</span> told ThinkProgress that it “belongs to many organizations and while we share common views on some issues, we do not share the same views on all issues.” Verizon, reaffirming its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility, said, “While we are members of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce, we generally are not involved in policy issues that do not directly affect our business, such as the regulation of power plants.” Coca-Cola said it has no position on the Chamber’s report, 3M said it is still reviewing it, and Lockheed Martin said that it “has not evaluated the chamber’s report,” noting, “and it’s our understanding that the proposed regulations do not apply to us as it involves power plants.” <span class="caps">MGM</span> Resorts, while noting its commitment to clean energy, said it is not able “to claim the authority to comment on the issue of power plant emissions.”</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Prudential wrote: “The Chamber does not speak on behalf of Prudential.”</p>
<p>Ouch.</p>
<p>This is also not the first time that the <span class="caps">US</span> Chamber has found itself on the wrong side of the climate change fight. In 2009, the Chamber saw a <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/news/61669-apple-becomes-fourth-company-to-leave-us-chamber">mass exodus of members</a> over their refusal to acknowledge global warming science. Major companies like Apple, Nike (resigned from the Chamber’s board, but still remained members), and Exelon publicly admonished the Chamber for their backwards stance on climate change and pulled their support from the group’s efforts. <br /><br />
Given the latest backlash from corporations, you have to wonder whether or not the business powerhouse has finally gone too far in denying basic science.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8199';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8199"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2521">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4561">Apple</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4540">Nike</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5688">Business</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10138">Rule</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6078">Carbon Emission</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11607">2030</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6079">Money</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1004">economy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2327">environment</a></div></div></div>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:44:26 +0000Farron Cousins8199 at http://www.desmogblog.comGroups Say CO Governor Hickenlooper Evading Public Input on Fracking Policyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/30/groups-say-co-governor-evading-public-input-fracking-policy
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/John_Hickenlooper_-_World_Economic_Forum_Annual_Meeting_2012_cropped.jpg?itok=iyKY7Vwd" width="200" height="328" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div>
Eleven grassroots citizens groups are demanding that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper allow them access to meetings he is holding about a proposed special legislative session to address fracking. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Gov. Hickenlooper and the drilling industry have been trying to strike a “grand bargain”-style, watered-down bill to <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/02/energy-industry-s-last-ditch-effort-short-circuit-colorado-ballot-initiatives">circumvent</a> a slew of powerful anti-fracking initiatives currently working their way towards the state ballot. Colorado's regular legislative session ended early in May, and the governor wants to call a special session to pass his compromise bill.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The groups protesting their exclusion from the governor's meetings are the same ones that led successful efforts to pass anti-fracking ballot initiatives in six front-range communities, and which continue to represent communities impacted by fracking.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Colorado newspapers like the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/News/Local/ci_25811970/Hickenlooper-oil-industry-executives-consider-sparer">Denver Post</a> and <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/capitol_business/2014/05/several-groups-air-great-concern-to-hickenlooper.html">Denver Business Journal</a> have widely reported that oil and gas industry executives and other “stakeholders” have been attending discussions with the governor to craft new state legislation pertaining to drilling and fracking.<br /><br />
But none of the citizen and environmental groups that moved the moratoria and bans forward in the last 18 months in the six cities representing over 400,000 citizens, including Fort Collins, Loveland (pending), Longmont, Boulder, Broomfield, and Lafayette, have been informed about the meetings or invited to attend. </div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
The groups believe that Gov. Hickenlooper's meetings may violate Colorado's Sunshine Law which requires the state to notify the public about the meetings and allow the public access to them. The groups say they believe the governor may be trying to subvert public process and citizen input by holding closed-door meetings with industry executives.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The eleven groups demanding access to the meetings are Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins, Our Longmont, Our Broomfield, What the Frack? Arapahoe, Be The Change, Garfield Transparency Project, Food and Water Watch, The Mother's Project, Frack Free Colorado and 350 Colorado.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/John_Hickenlooper_-_World_Economic_Forum_Annual_Meeting_2012_cropped.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></em></span></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8182';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8182"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16696">Fracking Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14905">John Hickenlooper</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div></div></div>Fri, 30 May 2014 20:02:25 +0000Anne Landman8182 at http://www.desmogblog.comGroundbreaking Anti-Fracking Ballot Initiative Clears Key Hurdle in Coloradohttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/27/groundbreaking-anti-fracking-ballot-initiave-clears-key-hurdle-colorado
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/7323915516_cd1bf18105_b.jpg?itok=MM9jmrBz" width="200" height="139" alt="Fracking protest" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/27/untangling-colorado-s-flood-anti-fracking-ballot-initiatives">citizen-led anti-fracking battles</a> in Colorado ratcheted up a notch May 22 when the Colorado Community Rights Network <a href="https://www.facebook.com/COCommunityRights/photos/a.442277172549754.1073741829.420221298088675/539592792818191/?type=1&amp;theater">announced</a> that Ballot Initiative #75, the Community Right Amendment (also known as “Right to Local Self-Government”), has cleared its final legal hurdle with the Colorado Supreme Court and has the go-ahead to start gathering signatures to get the measure on the November ballot.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/02/energy-industry-s-last-ditch-effort-short-circuit-colorado-ballot-initiatives">Initiative #75</a> would give cities and towns the right to regulate or ban outright any for-profit enterprise that threatens the environment or the health, safety or welfare of its citizens. In addition to letting localities regulate drilling as they see fit, it would give citizens the right to ban pursuits such as hazardous waste dumps, factory farms or genetically modified crop farming within their cities' borders.</span></p>
<p>Currently, only the state has the authority to regulate oil and gas drilling in Colorado, but as drilling companies exploit more land for energy production, rigs are springing up next to homes, schools, playgrounds and shopping areas. Citizens are alarmed when they find out they have little power to stop it. </p>
<!--break-->
<h3>
Historic Measure Would Rein in Corporate Power</h3>
<p>Ballot Initiative #75 is a constitutional amendment that would stop the state from pre-empting local drilling bans. In a nutshell, it would elevate citizens' rights over corporate rights and would be the first state law of its kind in the country.</p>
<p>The prospect of the new law has Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper running scared and energy companies gearing up to spend tens of millions of dollars to try to defeat the initiative.</p>
<p>Hickenlooper is a former petroleum geologist who has sided with energy interests in Colorado's fracking debate. He has <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/07/31/colorado-sues-longmont-over-oil-and.html">sued communities</a> that have enacted local fracking bans, an unpopular action that has earned him the nickname “<a href="https://twitter.com/Frackenlooper">Governor Frackenlooper</a>.”</p>
<p>Hickenlooper is hoping groups backing Initiative #75 and a slew of other anti-fracking measures will agree to a four-year time-out on their initiative efforts to allow time to work on his compromise legislation. He hopes to push his<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/capitol_business/2014/05/hickenlooper-offers-new-proposal-on-local-control.html"> compromise legislation</a> through a special legislative session. Colorado's regular legislative session ended in early May, but Hickenlooper is hoping to reconvene state legislators to pass his bill. </p>
<h3>
Governor Tries to Short-Circuit Ballot Initiatives</h3>
<p>Hickenlooper proposes letting local governments impose stricter environmental rules on drilling than state rules and allowing localities to impose “reasonable” fees on energy companies to cover the cost of inspecting and monitoring drilling operations, but his proposal also contains some plums for energy companies. It would stop local governments from banning drilling outright and if localities fail to act upon drilling applications within 180 days, the applications would be deemed approved. </p>
<p>Despite this, energy industry groups are unhappy with the governor's proposals and think they give local governments too much control over their operations. The Colorado Petroleum Association <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/capitol_business/2014/05/several-groups-air-great-concern-to-hickenlooper.html?page=all">complained</a> that Hickenlooper's legislative proposals would “drive up the costs of doing business and create disincentives for oil and gas development in the state.”</p>
<p>Proponents of Ballot Initiative #75 say Hickenlooper's compromise legislation is merely an effort to short-circuit their groundbreaking initiative and keep it from going to a democratic vote of Colorado citizens. </p>
<p>Stay tuned for the next episode in Colorado's fracking wars. </p>
<p><em><span style="font-size:11px;">Photo: Erie Rising via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/erierising/7323915516/in/photolist-ca611o-cbpkUW-aLhrW4-akEXSQ-9ftph1-akEYad-akEYwj-akEYBj-akCa6k-akEYeW-ccmaG1-ca663m-cabYVs-ca5LBJ-caef7s-cac2mW-cac5kA-6aJ4pZ-dofmui-akC9Zn-akCatz-akC9Pr-akEYku-ca66sA-ca5Znm-ca5Mo1-ca5SLd-ca5YDm-ca67i1-ca5KRo-ca5UQ1-cac1JL-ca5Wzf-ca5VRG-caedM7-ca5Xfu-cabVtb-cac46o-caefP7-caeaAA-cabwP9-cabuN9-caebLE-cabZtq-caed5d-cabXaW-cac18S-cadomC-cabUNW-caecAo">Flickr</a></span></em></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8163';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8163"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16134">anti-fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3136">energy policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2187">Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15224">Colorado fracking</a></div></div></div>Tue, 27 May 2014 19:17:06 +0000Anne Landman8163 at http://www.desmogblog.comNew Report Exposes Fossil Fuel Front Groups Behind Attacks on Renewableshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/22/new-report-exposes-fossil-fuel-interest-groups-behind-clean-energy-attacks
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Oil%20Money.jpg?itok=p8sjrkkb" width="200" height="150" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Fossil fuel exploitation in the United States has reached a fevered pitch. Oil production is at a <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/us-oil-production-booms-while-opec-flounders/">near-record high</a>, and fracking activities have made the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/23/fracking-shale-gas-us-global-leader/3170255/">number one producer of natural gas</a>. All of this comes at a cost. In 2013, the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3437109/oil-spills-2013/">oil industry averaged 20 oil spills per day</a>, destroying countless swaths of the environment and leaving toxic chemicals for nearby residents to deal with. Meanwhile, oil and gas train derailments have <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/17/3427500/oil-trains-disaster/">totaled at least 11</a> in the last 11 months. </p>
<p>During this period of dirty energy dominance, investments in renewable energy continued to <a href="http://time.com/51834/renewable-energy-investment/">fall by 14% in 2013</a>. The United States is averaging 20 oil spills per day, 1 dirty energy transport train derailment and explosion per month, and yet we’re still doubling down on fossil fuels. </p>
<p>This all seems fairly shocking, until you peel back the curtain on who is behind the efforts to keep renewable energy solutions out of the picture, which is exactly what a new report has done. <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/">The Energy and Policy Institute</a> (<span class="caps">EPI</span>) has released a report detailing not only the fossil fuel front groups behind the attacks on clean energy, but also how they are able to use their money and political muscle to prevent a viable market for clean energy, limiting energy choices for consumers.</p>
<p>From the report, <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/renewable-energy-state-policy-attacks-report"><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Attacks on Renewable Energy Standards and Net Metering Policies By Fossil Fuel Interests <span class="amp">&amp;</span> Front Groups 2013-2014</span></a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">:</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">The fossil fuel lobby aggressively uses lobbying and propaganda to achieve their goals. Self-identified “free market think tanks” are among the most effective advocates for the fossil fuel industry to lobby for policy changes. Dozens of these so-called free market organizations, a majority of which are members of the State Policy Network (<span class="caps">SPN</span>), worked to influence state level energy policies and attack the clean energy industry…</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Fossil fuel-funded front groups operate in multiple areas to influence the policy-making process in their attempts to eliminate clean energy policies. First, groups like the Beacon Hill Institute provide flawed reports or analysis claiming clean energy policies have negative impacts. Next, allied front groups or “think tanks” use the flawed data in testimony, opinion columns, and in the media. Then, front groups, like Americans for Prosperity, spread disinformation through their grassroots networks, in postcards mailed to the public, and in television ads attacking the clean energy policy. Finally, lobbyists from front groups, utilities, and other fossil fuel companies use their influence from campaign contributions and meetings with decision makers to push for anti-clean energy efforts.</p>
<p>In addition to listing the individual groups that are fighting against clean energy, <span class="caps">EPI</span> also provides a chart showing which groups are most active in energy-producing states, and how their attacks on renewable energy have derailed (or inspired) legislation in each state. Proposals have ranged from charging citizens an extra $50 - $100 a month if they install solar panels, to smear campaigns geared towards convincing the public that installing clean energy technology in their homes is an investment that will never pay off for consumers.</p>
<p>The report lists the usual suspects as the main culprits: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (<span class="caps">ALEC</span>), <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/americans-prosperity-history-research-background-funding">Americans for Prosperity</a>, and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State_Policy_Network">State Policy Network</a>. The money behind these groups is from sources like the Koch brothers, Exxon, and many other dirty energy heavy hitters.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e138">Studies have shown</a> that increasing the availability of clean energy to consumers will have a negative effect on the dirty energy industry: Increased demand for renewables will open up the market, then demand for dirty energy will drop, forcing utility companies to lower their rates. The <span class="caps">EPI</span> report shows that these utility companies and other dirty energy interests are not about to go down without a fight, and they are fighting back with everything they have in their arsenal. </p>
<p>One of the most important things to note about the report’s findings is that most of these stealth attacks on renewable energy are coming at the state level rather than the federal level. There’s a good reason for that: State legislation rarely makes national news, making it far more likely for state citizens to have little to no idea what’s happening at home. </p>
<p>The stealth attacks have been very successful so far, but <a href="http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/99/attachments/original/1400726723/Report-State-Renewable-Energy-Attacks-by-Fossil-Fuel-Front-Groups.pdf?1400726723"><span class="caps">EPI</span>’s new report</a> could easily change that. Now that the lights have been turned on, we’ll start seeing the dirty energy cockroaches running for cover.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8155';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8155"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6079">Money</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5227">politics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6383">Government</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16546">Energy Policy Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16547">EPI</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5968">Koch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/640">exxon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5689">Lobby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7681">State Policy Network</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6853">ALEC</a></div></div></div>Thu, 22 May 2014 15:42:54 +0000Farron Cousins8155 at http://www.desmogblog.comDid Lennart Bengtsson Know Global Warming Policy Foundation And Heartland Institute?http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/20/did-lennart-bengtsson-know-gwpf-and-heartland
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/heartland_billboard_0_0.jpg?itok=cXfDBS0M" width="200" height="73" alt="Did Lennart Bengtsson Know About GWPF And Heartland?" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation"> Global Warming Policy Foundation</a> (<span class="caps">GWPF</span>) has recently gotten worldwide publicity. It proudly announced that well-published climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson <a href="http://archive.today/oW271">had joined its Academic Advisory Council</a> (<span class="caps">AAC</span>), finally adding someone with scientific credibilty. A week later, he quit, and affairs went downhill, as per <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil">The Guardian</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/16/science-journal-debunks-claims-conservative-media-repressed-climate-research-bengtsson">Huffpost</a>,<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/18/climate-journal-chief-editor-responds-bengtsson"> DeSmogBlog</a> and many others. Of course, the usual denial blogs and publications proclaimed awful behavior on the part of climate scientists.</p>
<p>Perhaps Dr. Bengtsson did not know that <span class="caps">GWPF</span> was the nearest <span class="caps">UK</span> equivalent to the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a> and the two were quite closely coupled.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/foia-facts-5-finds-friends-gwpf"><span class="caps">FOIA</span> Facts 5 - Finds Friends Of <span class="caps">GWPF</span></a> analyzed <span class="caps">AAC</span> Chairman <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/david-henderson">David Henderson</a>'s email to a list that included 19 Heartland experts, speakers, employees or consultants. Then, another eight Heartland-related people were <span class="caps">GWPF</span> or <span class="caps">AAC</span> members, including Henderson himself. The full <strong>To:</strong> list was quite instructive.</p>
<p>Two years after the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/us-and-them-psychology-behind-heartland-institute-billboards">infamous Heartland billboard</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax">other exposures of Heartland activities</a>, seven <span class="caps">GWPF</span> <span class="caps">AAC</span> members are still Heartland Experts:<br /><span id="bc_0_30b+seedGOXgD" kind="d"><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=carter">Robert Carter, </a><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=dyson">Freeman Dyson, </a><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=goklany">Indur Goklany, </a><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=lindzen">Richard Lindzen,</a> <a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=mckitrick">Ross McKitrick, </a><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=plimer">Ian Plimer, </a><a href="http://heartland.org/experts?title=shaviv">Nir Shaviv</a></span>. </p>
<p>Both Heartland and <span class="caps">GWPF</span> are <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nigel-lawsons-climatechange-denial-charity-intimidated-environmental-expert-9350069.html">tax-exempt</a> political “charities” that have little to do with science except to attack it. Perhaps Dr. Bengtsson has now learned that one is known by the company they keep and a credible scientist had fallen into very bad company. Hopefully he has indeed learned.</p>
<p><span class="caps">UPDATE</span> 08/30/14: For more detail, see discussion at <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/14/ha-ha-lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board-of-gwpf/">Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of <span class="caps">GWPF</span> (</a><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/14/ha-ha-lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board-of-gwpf/">Stoat), L'Affaire Bengtsson (Rabett Run)</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson"> Wikipedia.</a> When a scientist starts doing silly things and lending his name to an anti-science group, calling colleague's displeasure <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism">McCarthysim</a> shows ignorance of the term's meaning.</p>
<!--break-->
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8141';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8141"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16450">lenanrt bengtsoon; gwpf;heartland</a></div></div></div>Tue, 20 May 2014 19:09:46 +0000John Mashey8141 at http://www.desmogblog.comEnergy Industry Makes Last-Ditch Effort to Short Circuit Colorado Fracking Ballot Initiativeshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/02/energy-industry-s-last-ditch-effort-short-circuit-colorado-ballot-initiatives
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_95271874.jpg?itok=VzMeeQW-" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div>
Colorado's oil and gas industry is <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/05/01/hickenlooper-backs-talks-on-oil-gas-local-control.html">trying to short-circuit</a> proposed ballot initiatives that would strictly regulate drilling and fracking by pushing a watered-down, last-minute bill in the state legislature.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The industry-backed <a href="http://coloradopols.com/diary/57432/local-control-grand-bargain-in-the-works">“grand bargain” bill</a> would give local governments limited, feel-good regulatory authority over oil and gas operations, like the ability to determine setbacks from drilling rigs and to charge “reasonable” fees for inspecting drilling operations. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Colorado's legislative session ends May 7 though, leaving precious little time for the legislature to take up the measure. The bill faces only a 50/50 chance of even being introduced within the next couple of days. It would need a minimum of three days to get through the legislature. </div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<h2>
Weak Industry-Sponsored Bill vs. Strong Grassroots Initiatives</h2>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The proposed bill would let energy companies appeal decisions by local governments regarding their operations, and would keep cities from banning or placing moratoria on drilling for more than six months within any five year period. It would also block communities from banning oil and gas operations within their borders. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
By contrast, the ballot initiatives would give local governments far more extensive power to regulate oil and gas operations by allowing cities to ban drilling completely, or mandate large setbacks for drill rigs.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
One measure, Ballot Initiative #75, also known as the Community Rights Amendment, goes far beyond regulating oil and gas operations to rein in corporate power. Hailed as a civil rights bill and a game-changer for corporate domination of the state's legal system, it gives citizens the final say over whether they want to allow any unsafe, hazardous or noxious corporate activity to occur within their city's borders. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Desperate to keep #75 off the ballot, industry interests are challenging it at every turn. They challenged it to the Colorado Secretary of State's Hearing Board, but lost on a unanimous vote.<br /><br />
On April 16, in a strategy to delay the measure's signature-gathering phase, opponents appealed #75 to Colorado's Supreme Court, claiming the text doesn't meet legal requirements. The Court is scheduled to rule on the appeal on May 23, which will leave only three months for proponents to gather the 86,105 valid signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Currently in Colorado, state oil and gas regulations override the desires of citizens and local governments to regulate drilling in their communities. Frustrated people across the state are finding out they are powerless to stop drilling rigs from setting up next to homes, schools, parks and shopping centers. This has created the recipe for the growing <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/15/new-business-coalition-forms-colorado-fight-anti-fracking-movement">anti-fracking movement</a> in Colorado, and the ongoing policy showdown between people and the energy industry. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Stay tuned for the latest in the fracking battles in Colorado.<br /><br />
Image credit: Colorado landscape via <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-95271874/stock-photo-colorado-autumn.html">Shutterstock</a>.</div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8069';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8069"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2187">Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5360">ballot initiatives</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16134">anti-fracking</a></div></div></div>Fri, 02 May 2014 18:48:19 +0000Anne Landman8069 at http://www.desmogblog.comUntangling Colorado's Flood of Anti-Fracking Ballot Initiatives http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/27/untangling-colorado-s-flood-anti-fracking-ballot-initiatives
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_181753247.jpg?itok=4dZhb51t" width="200" height="213" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Colorado voters who try to figure out all the proposed statewide ballot initiatives to regulate drilling and fracking are in for a real challenge. So far, 11 ballot initiatives have been proposed on the subject for the November vote, with many of them extremely similar to each other. </span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
It's tempting to think the oil and gas industry filed some of them as bait-and-switch measures to confuse voters and to try to pass a watered-down measure, but that doesn't seem to be the case.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So far all the initiatives appear to have been brought by people who truly want to change Colorado's existing regulatory regimen, which favors corporate dominance over the desires of residents. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Here's a rundown on what we know so far about Colorado's slew of proposed anti-fracking ballot measures.</div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<h3>
Initiatives Galore </h3>
<div>
Of the 11 ballot initiatives, two of them are from verfiable grassroots sources, and the other nine are from a single source that appears to be a professionally managed and well-funded political effort.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #75</strong>, “Right to Local Self-Government,” also called the “Community Rights Amendment,” is a constitutional amendment, which has passed the title-setting hurdle and is now on its way toward the signature-gathering phase.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Initiative #75 is being cast as a groundbreaking citizens' civil rights measure in an age of corporate dominance. It would give counties, cities and towns the absolute right to ban any noxious, for-profit enterprise within their borders, including things like hazardous waste dumps, factory farms and genetically modified crops as well as drilling and fracking. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
A 2014 pro-drilling publication issued by the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, called <a href="http://www.ipanm.org/images/library/File/Energy%20New%20Mexico%202014.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“Energy New Mexico,”</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> (pdf)</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, warns that the community rights movement is “the beginning of a social movement that is greater than just the oil and gas industry” and that it “is a potential game-changer for all of corporate America.” </span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The proponents of #75 are Cliff Willmeng of Lafayette, and a fellow named Lotus (just one name) from Colorado Springs. They are easy to contact by phone and will talk your ear off about their initiative for as long as you care to chat. </span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #82</strong>, “Local Control of Oil and Gas Development,” is also a constitutional amendment introduced by a group called “Local Control Colorado,” headed by Laura Fronkiewicz of Broomfield. Initiative #82 has passed the title-setting hurdle and is on its way to having the petition format approved. It would let cities and towns regulate the time, place and methods used for drilling, and would also let jurisdictions ban or enact moratoriums on drilling.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Fronkiewicz, who is easy to get a hold of on the phone, says the push to get Initiative #82 on the ballot is definitely a grassroots effort and is funded by a broad base of $5 and $10 donations. She says people in Boulder, Broomfield, Fort Collins and Loveland, who have been successful at getting anti-fracking measures passed at their local ballot boxes, are behind it. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #85</strong>, “Mandatory Setbacks of Oil and Gas Wells,” requires drilling rigs to be a minimum distance from any occupied structures, and proposes a setback distance of 1,500 feet, although there is no clear scientific guideline so far that specifies a safe distance from a drilling rig. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #86</strong> has the exact same title and wording as #85, but proposes a minimum setback of 2,000 feet. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #87</strong> has exactly the same title and wording as #85, but proposes a setback of 2,640 feet. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #88</strong> has the same title as #85, but proposes a minimum setback distance of “at least” 2,000 feet.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #89</strong>, called “Local Government Regulation of Environment,” officially designates state and local governments as trustees of clean air, pure water and the natural and scenic values of Colorado's land. It gives local governments the power to enact laws, regulations and ordinances more restrictive and protective of the environment than those adopted by state government. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #90</strong>, titled “Local Government Control of Oil and Gas Development Including Hydraulic Fracturing,” gives local governments the right to adopt regulations on oil and gas development, including fracking, that are more restrictive than state regulations. It includes the ability to out-and-out prohibit drilling and fracking. Initiative #90 contains a clause saying such regulations will not constitute “a taking of private property.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #91</strong> is very similar to, and has the exact same title as #90, but omits the clause about private property. It says local governments can enact regulations stricter and more protective than state government regulations. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #92</strong> has the same title as #90, says local governments can regulate oil and gas development, including fracking, and that such regulations can be stricter than state regulations. #90 says such development “may impact property value,” public health, safety and welfare. It does not contain the clause saying such regulation “is not a taking of private property.” </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiative #93</strong> has the same name and is very similar to #90, but contains the private property clause.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Initiatives #85-93</strong> are all constitutional amendments. Their titles have all been set and they are awaiting approval of a petition format.</div>
<div>
</div>
<h3>
Nine Ballot Initiatives from One Source</h3>
<div>
Initiatives #85-93 were all filed by Caitlyn Leahy of Lafayette, Colo., who is listed as the primary proponent for all of them. Who is she?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/caitlin-leahy/7/76/a85">Her LinkedIn profile says</a> she is fundraising and events co-ordinator for Colorado's <span class="caps">U.S.</span> House Representative Jared Polis, who represents Colorado's 2nd Congressional District. Multiple inquiries to Jared Polis' campaign headquarters and congressional offices to verify Leahy's relationship to Rep. Polis have gone unanswered. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Rep. Polis is an entrepreneur, philanthropist and one of the <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html">top ten richest members of Congress</a>, with a net worth of about $67 million. He represents the Colorado communities that successfully passed fracking bans at the local ballot box, including Boulder, Lafayette, Broomfield and Fort Collins. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Unlike the proponents the state lists for initiatives #75 and #82 — who are easy to reach on the phone and eager to discuss their initiatives — Leahy is flat-out impossible to reach. Repeated voicemails left for her went unanswered. The secondary listed proponent for initiatives #85-93 is Gregory Diamond, who is similarly impossible to reach. Calls to both were returned by a third person named Rick Ridder, who works for <a href="http://www.rbistrategies.com/" target="_blank"><span class="caps">RBI</span> Strategies</a>, a political consulting firm that represents “Coloradans for Local Control,” the group backing initiative #85. (Not be confused with “Local Control Colorado,” which backs Initiative #82).</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Ridder says the nine ballot initiatives his group has introduced resulted from a “broad interest coming out of the lawsuits” brought by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission against cities that have banned fracking. The subtle differences in language between them, he says, allows them an opportunity to look for “potential conflicts.” He says they they “may pick one, two or three” of them to advance to the ballot box.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“This is a response to the state taking communities to task” over their fracking bans, Ridder says. When asked if Rep. Polis was affiliated with any of the nine ballot initiatives, Ridder would not give a clear answer.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So far, despite having obvious strong feelings about drilling and local control, Rep. Polis has not publicly endorsed any of the 11 proposed ballot initiatives. </div>
<div>
</div>
<h3>
Jared Polis: The Anti-Fracking Congressman</h3>
<div>
Rep. Polis has publicly vowed to do everything he possibly can to empower people against energy companies setting up drilling rigs where citizens live, work and play. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The issue is a personal one for Rep. Polis. Last year a drilling rig set up just 50 feet from the driveway of his vacation home near the quiet farming community of Berthoud in Weld County, Colorado. Rep. Polis and his family were subjected to the noise, smell and lights from the rig 24/7.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The activity was so noxious, it drove them out. After that, Rep. Polis got serious in his battle against intrusive drilling rigs. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In July, 2013 he published an op-ed in the Denver Post titled <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23769998/frack-is-four-letter-word">“Frack is a Four Letter Word,”</a> and vowed “to pursue every avenue available to me to stop this from ruining my home.” But Polis soon <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_23733454/jared-polis-sues-stop-fracking-next-his-weld">found out</a> just how powerless Coloradans are to fight fracking activity under the state's current regulatory regime. He observed, “…Oil and gas has all the rights in Weld County.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Rep. Polis filed a legal complaint and sought a temporary restraining order against Sundance Energy, the company that owned the rig near his Berthod home, but later <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_23735851/jared-polis-withdraws-fracking-suit-effort-gather-more">withdrew it</a> because the law mandates such disputes be heard before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before they can go to the courts. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
He succeeded in getting a <a href="http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20140127/NEWS11/301270050/-26-000-penalty-upheld-Rep-Polis-drilling-dispute">$26,000 fine levied against Sundance Energy</a> for violating a buffer zone, but he declared the amount insufficient. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
None of the above proposed initiatives have been approved for the ballot yet, but despite this, Coloradans for Local Control, the group <a href="http://kdvr.com/2014/03/05/polis-helping-fund-fracking-ban-initiative-push/">Rep. Polis is believed to be affiliated with</a>, has started running a 30-second <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEYdySnfbNk"><span class="caps">TV</span> ad</a> promoting local control of oil and gas drilling.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Backed by ominous piano music, the ad shows drilling rigs set up next to homes, schools and playgrounds. A woman's voice says, “Would you want to <em>live</em> here? Want your kids to <em>play</em> here, next to a <em>fracking</em> rig? Fracking can occur just 501 feet from businesses, playgrounds, even your home, and right now you and your neighbors can't stop it. With local control of oil and gas drilling, you have the tools to protect your neighborhood.” The ad does not include any call to action, such as signing a petition or making a phone call. <br /><br />
Watch: <br /><object height="315" width="560"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/lEYdySnfbNk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/v/lEYdySnfbNk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560"></embed></object></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So far, none of the two verifiable grassroots groups trying to get initiatives passed have produced any ads, but are cultivating support through websites, Facebook, outreach around the state and word of mouth.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Stay tuned for more updates on the fracking wars in Colorado.</div>
<div>
<br /><span style="font-size:11px;"><em>Image credit: Stop Fracking raised hand via <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-181753247/stock-photo-open-hand-raised-stop-fracking-sign-painted-multi-purpose-concept-isolated-on-white-background.html">Shutterstock</a>.</em></span></div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7993';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7993"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2187">Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5360">ballot initiatives</a></div></div></div>Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:00:00 +0000Anne Landman7993 at http://www.desmogblog.comNew Business Coalition Forms in Colorado to Fight Anti-Fracking Movementhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/15/new-business-coalition-forms-colorado-fight-anti-fracking-movement
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/EnergyChaosAd.jpg?itok=-DA1AKXF" width="200" height="353" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div>
A new pro-fracking business coalition called “Vital for Colorado” (VfC) has sprung up to fight the growing grassroots anti-fracking movement in Colorado. VfC's board chairman and registered agent is <a href="http://www.vitalforcolorado.com/about/leadership/peter-moore/">Peter T. Moore</a>, a senior partner at the Denver law firm of Polsinelli, P.C., which <a href="http://www.polsinelli.com/industries/energy-and-utiilities/oil-and-gas">serves the oil and gas industry</a>. Calls and emails to Peter T. Moore and VfC seeking information on the group's major funders and legal registration information went unanswered. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Most of <a href="http://www.vitalforcolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Vital-Pledge-Form-2-24-14.pdf">VfC's supporters</a> (pdf) are chambers of commerce in more rural areas of the state, cattle and dairy farmers, trade groups like the Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association, prominent construction and real estate companies, and oil and gas drilling companies like Encana and Suncor Energy, which is based in Calgary, Alberta, and not in Colorado. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Why has VfC gone to the hinterlands to drum up support? Because VfC's best chance to gain support appears to be away from the front range, where so far <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/11/colorado-communities-battle-ban-fracking">five front range cities </a>have passed ordinances banning fracking within their limits, a fact that has apparently made a big impression on Colorado businesses.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In typical front group fashion, VfC's website doesn't list a phone number and it only permits email contact through a web form, but the site does give a street address for the group: 4950 S. Yosemite St., F2 #236. Coincidentally this is the same address as the former office of the issue group “No on Measure 2A,” whose registered agent <a href="https://stations.fcc.gov/collect/files/126/Political%20File/2013/Non-Candidate%20Issue%20Ads/No%20on%202A/No%20On%202A%20Inquiry%20(13823961637107)_.pdf">was also Peter T. Moore</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<!--break-->
<h3>
Out of Step with Public Sentiment</h3>
<div>
Measure 2A was a popular Denver ballot measure which passed in November, 2012 with a whopping 74 percent of the vote. It let Denver opt out of the state-mandated spending cap imposed by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Without raising tax rates, 2A immediately dropped an additional $68 million into the city's budget, allowing the city to reverse cuts in library hours, provide free access to public swimming pools and recreation centers for all Denver school-aged children, double the number of children enrolled after-school programs, lower property taxes for low-income seniors and disabled people, hire additional police and firefighters and repave roads.<br /><br />
The whopping margin by which 2A passed shows how wildly out of touch the “No on Measure 2A” camp, and its agent, Peter T. Moore, were with the desires of Denver-area citizens. Moore's new group, Vital for Colorado, seems to be equally out of touch with front range citizens' desire to keep fracking away from places where they live, work and play. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This background may also explain why most of VfC's <a href="http://www.vitalforcolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Vital-Pledge-Form-2-24-14.pdf">supporters</a> (pdf) are businesses and chambers of commerce located in more rural parts of the state. Probably correctly, VfC perceives its support base lies outside the front range, in more conservative areas of the state.</div>
<div>
</div>
<h3> Advertorials</h3>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">On March 10, VfC started running full page advertorials in newspapers in more rural towns, like Grand Junction and Pueblo, which scream, </span><strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">”<span class="caps">DON</span>'T <span class="caps">BE</span> <span class="caps">FOOLED</span>…<span class="caps">UNDER</span> <span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">GUISE</span> <span class="caps">OF</span> <span class="caps">LOCAL</span> <span class="caps">CONTROL</span>, <span class="caps">SPECIAL</span> <span class="caps">INTERESTS</span> <span class="caps">ARE</span> <span class="caps">TRYING</span> <span class="caps">TO</span> <span class="caps">CREATE</span> <span class="caps">ENERGY</span> <span class="caps">CHAOS</span> <span class="caps">IN</span> <span class="caps">COLORADO</span>.”</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> <br /><br />
VfC's “Energy Chaos” ads are aimed at counteracting the growing grassroots movement in Colorado to pass a </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/17/proposed-colorado-constitutional-amendment-would-let-cities-ban-fracking" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">constitutional amendment</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, currently called “Right to local Self-Government,” or Proposed Initiative #75, that would give cities the power to ban fracking and any other noxious pursuits, like hazardous waste dumps or factory farms, within city limits. The amendment would address the problem of overall corporate dominance and shield cities from lawsuits by corporations, their trade groups, or the state over passage of such protective measures. </span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
VfC is also circulating a <a href="http://www.vitalforcolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Vital-Pledge-Form-2-24-14.pdf">pledge</a> to businesses asking them to sign on to saying they “oppose energy bans and patchwork regulations.” </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Note how fracking proponents have started referring to anti-fracking ordinances as <a href="http://www.worldoil.com/COGA_addresses_energy_bans.html">“energy bans”</a> instead of “fracking bans,” in an attempt to arouse the fear that proponents of Proposed Initiative #75 are trying to ban all forms of energy. </div>
<div>
</div>
<h2>
Competing Amendment Sows Confusion</h2>
<div>
Now, several months into the effort to get Proposed Initiative #75 on the ballot, a new “dark horse” has appeared in the form of a competing amendment called <a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1314initrefr.nsf/925bd7524c595c6187257a3700571f8d/6a2ddb24ad0bcd7187257c8600802644/$FILE/2013-2014%2382.pdf">“Local Control of Oil and Gas Development,”</a> or Proposed Initiative #82. This measure would only give cities the right to restrict the time, place <span class="caps">OR</span> method of oil and gas development, without allowing them to ban drilling outright.<br /><br />
It is less broad and hence less powerful than Proposed Initiative #75, and the question remains about whether this measure was designed to give voters a more palatable measure to consider, or to confuse them outright.<br /><br />
Confusion might be the name of the game, as backers of the weaker measure have organized under the name <a href="http://localcontrolcolorado.org/">Local Control Colorado</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7925';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7925"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15224">Colorado fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5360">ballot initiatives</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5008">front groups</a></div></div></div>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:10:09 +0000Anne Landman7925 at http://www.desmogblog.comGulf Of Mexico: Open For Dirty Energy Exploitation Againhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/25/gulf-mexico-open-dirty-energy-exploitation
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/offshore%20drilling.jpg?itok=-kztej0g" width="200" height="150" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It has been nearly four years since <span class="caps">BP</span>’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and neither the dirty energy industry nor politicians in Washington, <span class="caps">D.C.</span> have learned anything from that tragedy. <a href="http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/02/fish-suffering-heart-failure-decreased-numbers-due-bp-oil-spill/">Even with new evidence</a> showing that the entire ecosystem in the Gulf has been disrupted as a result of the oil spill, companies are about to receive a massive gift in the form of new oil drilling leases.</p>
<p>Both the Interior Department and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (<span class="caps">BOEM</span>) <a href="http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/02/boem-offers-40-million-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-acres-in-gulf-of-mexico.html">have agreed to lease 40 million acres</a> of water space in the Gulf of Mexico next month to support President Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy, which is quickly beginning to look more like a “drill, baby, drill” policy. The leases will be good for five years’ worth of exploration in the Gulf.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/02/boem-offers-40-million-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-acres-in-gulf-of-mexico.html">PennEnergy explains</a> the President’s legacy so far with regards to energy production:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Domestic oil and gas production has grown each year President Obama has been in office, with domestic oil production currently higher than any time in two decades; natural gas production at its highest level ever; and renewable electricity generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources having doubled.</p>
<p>While PennEnergy says that renewable energy use has doubled under Obama, it <a href="http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/renewable-energy/">currently stands at only 9%</a> of total energy consumption, a rather paltry amount when compared to dirty energy consumption.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, the Gulf of Mexico is still reeling from the effects of the 2010 <span class="caps">BP</span> oil disaster. <a href="http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/02/fish-suffering-heart-failure-decreased-numbers-due-bp-oil-spill/">The latest reports coming from the region</a> show that scientists are finding high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chemicals that are found in crude oil. These chemicals are now making their way up the food chain and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pahs.pdf">causing disruption to cardiac rhythms</a> in marine life in addition to causing tumors and reproductive abnormalities. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, the <span class="caps">BOEM</span> <a href="http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/02/boem-offers-40-million-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-acres-in-gulf-of-mexico.html">leased 72 million</a> acres in the Gulf for drilling, and the upcoming leases will bring that to a grand total of 112 million acres in just the first three months of this year. The federal government has pulled in <a href="http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/02/boem-offers-40-million-offshore-oil-and-gas-exploration-acres-in-gulf-of-mexico.html">more than $1 billion</a> from Gulf drilling lease sales this year.</p>
<p>And even though they are responsible for the current disaster taking place beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, <span class="caps">BP</span> wants in on the leasing action. <span class="caps">BP</span>'s ability to bid on federal contracts in the Gulf was suspended in late 2012 after the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html">company agreed to plead guilty to charges of manslaughter, environmental crime, and obstruction of Congress</a>. But time heals all wounds, and <span class="caps">BP</span> America chairman John Minge <a href="http://www.wwltv.com/news/BP-America-prez-getting-closer-to-EPA-agreement-246211261.html">says that his group is very close to making a deal with the <span class="caps">EPA</span></a> that would once again allow them to buy new drilling leases in the Gulf. </p>
<p>The decision to lease tens of millions of acres in the Gulf next month — on top of the tens of millions that have already been sold this year — is proof that the Obama administration has abandoned its “all of the above” energy policies, and instead pursued policies which greatly benefit the dirty energy industry while leaving the American public and the environment at an unnecessary and severe risk.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7875';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7875"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6499">Drilling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5087">Gulf of Mexico</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1002">bp</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2702">obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5014">deepwater horizon</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11383">ecosystem</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13287">Damage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/science">Science</a></div></div></div>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins7875 at http://www.desmogblog.comColorado Becomes First State to Regulate Methane Pollution from Frackinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/24/colorado-becomes-first-state-regulate-methane-pollution-fracking
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_9502975.jpg?itok=6vHVsqsx" width="200" height="128" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Colorado has become the first <span class="caps">U.S.</span> state to pass rules <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24/colorado-first-state-to-clamp-down-on-fracking-methane-pollution.html">regulating methane air pollution from drilling and fracking operations</a>.<br /><br />
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (<span class="caps">AQCC</span>) voted 8-1 on Sunday, February 23, 2014 to require oil and gas companies operating in the state to start testing their pipelines, drill rigs, storage tanks, compressor stations and other sources of potential methane leakage on a monthly basis using new, more sensitive instruments like infrared cameras.<br /><br />
Companies will also be required to monitor, detect and repair leaks of other types of hydrocarbons, like volatile organic compounds (<span class="caps">VOC</span>s). They must also provide aggressive timelines for the repair of any leaks, and the new rules put stricter limits on emissions from drilling operations located near residential and recreational areas.<br /><br />
The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment expects the new rules to reduce <span class="caps">VOC</span> emissions in Colorado by approximately 92,000 tons a year, about equivalent to the amount emitted by all of the cars in Colorado over one year.<br /><br />
The new rules grew out of a collaboration between a coalition of environmental groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund and three of the largest energy companies operating in the state: Noble Energy, Inc., Encana Corporation and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. <br /><br />
Some industry groups tried to weaken the rules by arguing they should only apply to more heavily populated areas of the state and not statewide, but the <span class="caps">AQCC</span> resisted efforts to water down the new rules and adopted them largely as they were written, citing overwhelming public support for reining in air pollution from the drilling industry.<br /><br />
The new rules may also boost employment in the state. A spokesman who testified before the <span class="caps">AQCC</span> on behalf of Noble Energy said it will cost the company $3 million and they will have to hire 16 additional people to comply with the new rules. </p>
<!--break-->
<p><br /><span style="font-size:10px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9502975/stock-photo-smog-and-haze-over-downtown-denver-colorado.html">Smog layer over Denver, Colorado via Shutterstock</a></em></span>.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7876';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7876"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15224">Colorado fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9021">methane emissions</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10989">Fracking Air Pollution</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div></div></div>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:26 +0000Anne Landman7876 at http://www.desmogblog.comProposed Colorado Constitutional Amendment Would Let Cities Ban Frackinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/17/proposed-colorado-constitutional-amendment-would-let-cities-ban-fracking
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/You%27re%20Banned.jpeg?itok=HWjrCTsx" width="200" height="147" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Many Coloradans who have battled city-by-city to regulate fracking near their residential areas may get some relief under a proposed constitutional amendment that would give cities and towns the right to regulate business activities within their borders.</p>
<p>In January 2014, the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/COCommunityRights">Colorado Community Rights Network</a> (<span class="caps">CCRN</span>) submitted <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24837177/ballot-initiative-would-ensure-cities-right-regulate-iindustry">ballot language to amend Colorado's constitution</a>, which would give municipalities the right to ban or regulate fracking and any other industrial activity — such as factory farming and hazardous waste disposal — within their borders.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_24833288/proposed-statewide-ballot-measure-would-give-colo-communities">The amendment</a> would give local governments the right to enact laws “establishing, defining, altering or eliminating the rights, power and duties of for-profit business entities operating or seeking to operate in the community, to prevent such rights and powers from usurping or otherwise conflicting with the fundamental rights of people, their communities, and natural environment.”</p>
<p>Put concisely: the measure would make the will of cities and towns superior to the will of corporations. It would also permit cities to regulate any business that can put the health, safety and/or welfare of its inhabitants at risk.</p>
<p>The language of the amendment has been approved and it is now ready to go to Colorado's Secretary of State for a title assignment. <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">It would need a minimum of 86,000 valid signatures for a spot on the ballot. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Were it to pass, it would eliminate lawsuits like those currently being brought by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association against Fort Collins, Broomfield and Lafayette, all of which have voted to ban drilling and fracking within their borders. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The proposal was originally called the “</span><a href="http://www.celdf.org/downloads/CO_State_Constitutional_Amendment_Jan_2014.pdf" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Community Rights Constitutional Amendment</a>,<span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">” drafted by the </span><a href="http://www.celdf.org/downloads/PR_CELDF_COCRN_Constitutional_Amendment_012014.pdf" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> (<span class="caps">CELDF</span>) at the request of the <span class="caps">CCRN</span>. <a href="http://celdf.live2.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/Press_Release_OH_and_CO_Voters_Adopt_CBOR_110613.pdf">Lafayette passed the first</a> so-called “<a href="http://www.occupy.com/article/how-community-bill-rights-empowering-people-against-corporations">Community Bill of Rights</a>” ordinance in the state in 2013, after citizens voted to amend the city's charter to make fracking illegal. </span></p>
<!--break--></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7840';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7840"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15224">Colorado fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13649">drilling ban</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5360">ballot initiatives</a></div></div></div>Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:38 +0000Anne Landman7840 at http://www.desmogblog.comColorado Communities Battle to Ban Frackinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/11/colorado-communities-battle-ban-fracking
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/frackfreeco.jpg?itok=geX-s3aa" width="200" height="140" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Citizens in cities on Colorado's front range are pushing back against the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/">fracking</a> boom by passing ballot measures to either prohibit the practice or ban it temporarily.<br /><br />
The town of Longmont was the first in Colorado to ban fracking in 2012, when voters changed their city charter to prohibit it. Governor John Hickenlooper's administration then sued Longmont over their ban, claiming only the state has the authority to regulate drilling.<br /><br />
Despite the lawsuit, in 2013 even more Colorado cities passed anti-fracking ballot measures. Fort Collins passed a five year moratorium on fracking within city limits, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (<span class="caps">COGA</span>) <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/204850246/COGA-Complaint">sued Fort Collins</a> over the measure less than one month after it passed. By a close vote, the city of Broomfield narrowly passed a ballot measure similar to Fort Collins'.<br /><br />
After a recount determined Broomfield's measure had passed by 17 votes out of more than 20,000 cast, <span class="caps">COGA</span> sued Broomfield, too, saying only the state can regulate drilling.<br /><br />
Boulder citizens voted 78 percent in favor of extending an existing moratorium on fracking by five more years, and by a margin of 60.1 to 39.9 percent, Lafayette voters amended their city charter to make fracking for energy development out-and-out illegal. <span class="caps">COGA</span> sued Lafayette, too, at the same time it sued Fort Collins.<br /><br />
So far, Boulder has escaped a lawsuit since there currently are no active wells there. <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Rep. Jared Polis (D-<span class="caps">CO</span>), whose district contains all of these embattled cities, defended their efforts to ban fracking within their borders. Polis posted a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3EnfqenXU&amp;feature=share&amp;list=UUJJ1Ye0mOzqZh1_GErFUISw&amp;index=3">YouTube video</a> in which he tells <span class="caps">COGA</span> to stop their lawsuits, saying it's “unAmerican” for <span class="caps">COGA</span> to sue Colorado communities “just because they didn't like the outcome at the ballot box.”</p>
<!--break-->
<p><object height="315" width="560"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/puQ24uz06KI?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/v/puQ24uz06KI?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560"></embed></object><br />
Polis says he agrees with the industry's efforts to win over the hearts and minds of Colorado residents, but “when you don't get your way, you don't win friends by suing people.”<br /><br />
Polis acknowledges the energy industry's importance to the country, but tells <span class="caps">COGA</span>, “You can't just simply attack and bully your way to success… As long as the industry continues to bully our towns and cities and force them to have fracking where they don't even want it, it's not going to get very far in this state.”</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7837';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7837"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15224">Colorado fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13649">drilling ban</a></div></div></div>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:28:04 +0000Anne Landman7837 at http://www.desmogblog.comBusiness Coalition Announces Massive Offensive Against Environmental Protectionshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/10/business-coalition-announces-massive-offensive-against-environmental-protections
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/cutting-the-red-tape.JPG?itok=wwlSLF9-" width="200" height="170" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As the Obama administration begins to take action to <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/obama-power-play-epa-agenda-climate-change-102894.html">rein in the emissions from the dirty energy industry</a>, big business groups all over the country have announced that they aren’t willing to stop polluting <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196968-business-plans-major-pushback-on-energy-regulation">without putting up a very serious fight</a>.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Chamber of Commerce, the American Gas Association, and 74 other big business groups said that they are banding together to fight the administration’s forthcoming power plant standards that will require carbon capture technologies to be in place at all plants. <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196968-business-plans-major-pushback-on-energy-regulation">According to The Hill</a>, the groups said that they are planning “everything from lobbying to litigation” in order to fight the administration’s efforts.</p>
<p>These business groups say that they have seen “<a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/07/03/war-coal-doesn-t-exist-says-coal-lobby">what Obama has done</a>” to the coal industry, and fear that their industries could be targeted next. They are also fearful that too much emphasis is being put on developing renewable energy, as <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196968-business-plans-major-pushback-on-energy-regulation">The Hill points out</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">American Gas Association President Dave McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, said the coalition would need to protect a single-minded push toward renewable energy production.</p>
<p>As expected, politicians in Washington saw that the industry was pushing back, so they have jumped on the bandwagon. </p>
<!--break-->
<p>A coalition of Senators, led by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197157-senators-urge-obama-to-reconsider-climate-regs">have sent a letter</a> to Obama, asking him to reconsider the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s plans to require carbon capture technology at new and existing power plants. The coalition consists mainly of Republicans, with the exception of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who represents the coal-dependent state of West Virginia. Mr. Blunt has <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&amp;cid=n00005195&amp;type=I">personally received more than $1.8 million in campaign money</a> from the dirty energy industry over the course of his career. </p>
<p>The Senators <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197157-senators-urge-obama-to-reconsider-climate-regs">say that the cost of the new standards</a> would be passed onto consumers, who would be forced to pay higher energy rates as a result. The combined profits of the oil, coal, and gas industries in <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2013/09/26/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/">both the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and Canada for 2012 was $271 billion</a>, so they should easily be able to afford the technology without having to force consumers to pay more. </p>
<p>The current yearly cost to American taxpayers of air pollution <a href="http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollution-environment/health-effects-costs-air-pollution-research-roundup">ranges from $19 billion to $167 billion</a>, and the new standards being rolled out by the <span class="caps">EPA</span> will help to reduce those costs. <br /><br />
The industry can put up a fight if they wish, but they need to be completely transparent about the fact that they believe their profits are worth more than the lives of the <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829.html">200,000 people who die each year</a> from air pollution.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7816';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7816"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3676">chamber of commerce</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1308">republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15220">Roy Blunt</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5666">Joe Manchin</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7305">Standards</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6834">Safety</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6039">air pollution</a></div></div></div>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:41:09 +0000Farron Cousins7816 at http://www.desmogblog.comSenate’s “Dirty Duo” Ready To Lift Oil Export Banhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/03/senate-s-dirty-duo-ready-lift-oil-export-ban
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Dirty%20Duo.jpg?itok=N-lMdQXS" width="200" height="125" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The two ranking members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee signaled they are <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196985-landrieu-murkowski-open-to-bill-lifting-crude-export-ban">prepared to introduce legislation</a> to lift the ban on <span class="caps">U.S.</span> oil exports. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-<span class="caps">LA</span>) and Lisa Murkowski (R-<span class="caps">AK</span>) said that they would consider introducing legislation if President Obama does not otherwise lift the export ban. <br /><br /><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196985-landrieu-murkowski-open-to-bill-lifting-crude-export-ban">Landrieu will take over</a> as head of the Energy Committee soon, as current Chairman, Senator Ron Wyden, will be taking over a different committee.</p>
<p>Landrieu and Murkowski’s rhetoric is eerily similar to the case that the oil industry <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/19/exxon-pressures-government-lift-oil-export-restrictions">made for itself back in December</a>, when ExxonMobil called on the government to lift the export ban so they could <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/19/exxon-pressures-government-lift-oil-export-restrictions">sell American crude for a higher profit</a> overseas.</p>
<p>This “dirty duo” of Senators is clearly acting on purely selfish motivations. To begin with, both represent states that stand to benefit greatly from an increase in exports, as both Alaska and Louisiana are coastal states with deepwater ports. Furthermore, they have both received millions of dollars from the dirty energy industry over the course of their careers: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&amp;cid=n00005395&amp;type=I">Landrieu has received more than $2.3 million</a> while <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&amp;cid=n00026050&amp;type=I">Murkowski has pulled in $1.8 million</a>. <br /><br />
Lifting the ban would greatly benefit the industry that helped put the dirty duo in office.</p>
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196985-landrieu-murkowski-open-to-bill-lifting-crude-export-ban">Landrieu said this week</a> that she hopes there can be “sensible policy based on facts.” However, judging from the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196985-landrieu-murkowski-open-to-bill-lifting-crude-export-ban">sharp tone that she and Senator Murkowski</a> have used towards the issue, it's clear that they’ve already made up their minds without taking the facts into consideration.</p>
<p>But those facts are still worth knowing.</p>
<p>The crude oil export ban has been in place since 1975, and was put into place by the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CEIQFjAB&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Flegcoun%2FComps%2FEPCA.pdf&amp;ei=hVLsUsjLBIS4kQf5hYFY&amp;usg=AFQjCNFpnxzpmMtHq3D0jA1LcAkTQXrN5g&amp;sig2=qVNTL5AjJm36V-7nh8yi8w&amp;bvm=bv.60444564,d.eW0">Energy Policy and Conservation Act</a>. The law was a response to the oil embargo of the 1970’s, and was meant to help prevent a sudden drop in oil supplies and the economic hardships that follow a fuel shortage in both lost production and increased fuel costs. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/another-industry-talking-point-laid-rest-oil-production-soars-gas-prices-remain-high">only exceptions to the ban come from the President</a>, who is allowed to lift restrictions if he believes it is in the country’s best interest. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/01/28/82987/keep-american-crude-oil-at-home/">91 “permits” for exports were granted</a> in 2012 for a total export allowance of 5.3 million barrels a day. However, the majority of those permits went unused, resulting in 68,000 barrels of crude oil exports per day during the year. </p>
<p>Things in America have changed dramatically since the 1970’s, and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/another-industry-talking-point-laid-rest-oil-production-soars-gas-prices-remain-high">oil production today</a> has surpassed the wildest dreams of oil executives four decades ago. Thanks to the “fracking boom,” the dirty energy industry is awash in fossil fuels ready for burning.</p>
<p>While the Senate’s Dirty Duo and the oil industry are eager to lift the ban, the American public needs to understand that crooked politicians and industry shareholders will be the only ones who benefit.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/01/28/82987/keep-american-crude-oil-at-home/">Center for American Progress (<span class="caps">CAP</span>) explains</a> how consumers in America would be directly hit with higher costs from increased exports:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">…Lifting the crude oil export ban could similarly raise gasoline prices because 68 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline is the price of oil… Since the price of crude oil is the primary component of the price of gasoline, actions that raise the price of domestic oil should also raise the price of gasoline. Additionally, domestic oil exported overseas would be replaced by more-expensive imported oil, which could then be reflected in higher gasoline prices.</p>
<p>Our wallets will not be the only things vulnerable if the oil export ban is lifted. Our energy security would also be put in unnecessary peril, according to <span class="caps">CAP</span>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Supply and demand changes reduced oil imports by 46 percent from 2008 to 2013. The less oil we import, the more secure our oil supply…Energy Information Administration (<span class="caps">EIA</span>) projects that <span class="caps">U.S.</span> oil and liquid fuels consumption will grow modestly from 2013 to 2019, when oil use will peak at 19.5 million barrels per day, or mbd—5 percent higher than last year. <span class="caps">U.S.</span> liquid fuels use will then slowly decline to 18.7 mbd in 2040, only slightly above the current consumption level. This means that our oil consumption will remain fairly level over the next three decades despite population and economic growth.</p>
<p>The demand for increased oil and gas exploration on American soil <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/19/exxon-pressures-government-lift-oil-export-restrictions">was sold to citizens under the guise</a> of securing our “energy future” and reducing our dependence on “foreign oil.” Shipping our domestic crude overseas will only increase our dependence on foreign oil and leave us as vulnerable as we were during the fuel embargo in the 70’s.</p>
<p>All of this underscores the larger problem, which is that the United States appears to be doubling down on dirty energy instead of investing in viable, renewable alternative fuel sources. Unfortunately, the renewable industry doesn’t have the same kind of cash reserves as the dirty energy industry and they aren’t able to buy politicians.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7810';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7810"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7372">export</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15181">Lisa Murkowski</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13742">Mary Landrieu</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5756">Campaign</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9505">Donations</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15182">Embargo</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15183">Dirty Duo</a></div></div></div>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 04:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins7810 at http://www.desmogblog.comExxon Pressures Government To Lift Oil Export Restrictionshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/19/exxon-pressures-government-lift-oil-export-restrictions
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Exxon%20pump.jpg?itok=yw6e6EKH" width="200" height="141" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It wasn’t long ago that the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/polluters-join-forces-pressure-obama-oil-and-gas-drilling">dirty energy industry and their friends in Congress and the media were screaming</a> that we needed to open up every corner of America to oil and gas drilling in order to lower energy costs and help protect our country from oil-rich countries who don’t like the United States. </p>
<p>We were promised that increased domestic production would lower our fuel costs, strengthen our national security, and help ensure our economic prosperity. And even after the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/another-industry-talking-point-laid-rest-oil-production-soars-gas-prices-remain-high">Obama Administration agreed</a> to open up <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18361-obama-s-oil-expansion-plans-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-public-safety">even more federal lands to drilling</a>, the American public has yet to see any of these benefits materialize. </p>
<p>But the oil industry isn’t complaining. They’ve been given everything that they asked for over the last few years, and while we’re still paying, <a href="http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp">on average</a>, $3.22 a gallon at the pump, the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/574161/what-five-oil-companies-did-with-profits/">industry is pulling in profits of $375 million</a> a day between the top 5 companies.</p>
<p>You would think that Big Oil would have little to complain about at this point, but you’d be wrong. Apparently, they feel like their record profits should be even higher, so they’ve now decided that it's <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/polluters-join-forces-pressure-obama-oil-and-gas-drilling">time to ease restrictions on oil exports</a> so they can go take advantage of more lucrative overseas markets. Here at home, however, expect your pain at the pump to continue. You're not their priority, despite the fancy advertising.</p>
<p>ExxonMobil, the most profitable oil company in America, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/192941-exxon-calls-for-end-to-oil-export-ban">has called on the federal government</a> to ease the rules regarding how much domestically-produced oil can be shipped out of the United States. They are backed in this call by their friends in the conservative media, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579260510587353116">including the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>. </p>
<p>To reiterate, they want to take the oil that we finally agreed to let them “drill, baby drill” out of our <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/09/12/37152/drilling-could-threaten-our-national-parks/">national parks</a> and public lands – the oil that was supposed to lower our prices to take the burden off of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> families, but never did – and ship it to markets that are paying more for oil. Why? So they can make profits that make $375 million per day look like minimum wage by comparison.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The economics behind the price of oil that a country will pay are incredibly complicated and difficult to understand. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-money-fuels-afp-misinformation-campaign-gas-prices">As we’ve stated before</a>, the price of a barrel of oil is set on the international market, meaning most countries are going to pay the same amount for the same product. <br /><br />
But that really only tells half the story of oil prices, and it only accounts for the crude that is pulled from the ground, not the final refined product that is typically shipped to importing countries who lack refining capabilities.</p>
<p>The United States is a great example. Even though most Americans think they pay exorbitant prices at the pump, we are not bent completely “over the barrel” on the price of oil. <span class="caps">U.S.</span> gasoline prices are <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/">still among the lowest in the world</a>, and part of that is because we have the refining capacity to import crude oil, and our abundant ports make that a fairly easy task. </p>
<p>When crude oil is sold to a country that doesn't have its own supplies, the oil industry is able to jack up the price for transport. Additionally, if the country buying the supply does not have the capacity to refine crude oil itself, the company will gladly provide that service for an additional hefty charge. <br /><br />
These factors are what Exxon is hoping to take advantage of in this push to gain approval from Congress to sell more American oil abroad.</p>
<p>But we have advantages that other countries do not — lots of ports and refining capacity, often taxpayer subsidized to boot. </p>
<p>We also have another advantage, one critically important in determining the price of oil and gas – the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> dollar still has quite a bit of buying power. Last week, the price of a barrel of oil from <a href="http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/923.htm"><span class="caps">OPEC</span> finished at about $106</a>. That $106 figure means different things to different countries. For a country whose currency is in a weakened state, that $106 figure is a lot more expensive than it is for a country that is a global leader in currency exchange. <br /><br />
This means that if an oil company keeps their money in the area where the oil is sold, they will <em>technically</em> have a larger cash reserve. If they bring it back into the United States, <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=16003793&amp;contentId=7021414#7074428">the exchange rates</a> would yield a lower amount in their home currency. As a result, they would likely keep their money offshore, waiting for their foreign currency holdings to rise, which would then be exchanged for a larger amount in <span class="caps">U.S.</span> currency. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=16003793&amp;contentId=7021414#7074428">also other factors</a> including federal taxes, but those are less important here, as they are not given as profits back to the industry. </p>
<p>All those financial incentives to industry help mask the real issue, which is the increased global dependence on fossil fuels. Rather than investing in alternative, clean, renewable sources of energy in other areas of the world, Exxon wants to feed everyone their oil. And the increased shipping would cause even more fossil fuels to be burned, creating an environmentally toxic cycle of fossil fuel dependency. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that Americans were <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/polluters-join-forces-pressure-obama-oil-and-gas-drilling">sold the idea</a> of the need for increased domestic oil production because it would lower our costs at home. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/another-industry-talking-point-laid-rest-oil-production-soars-gas-prices-remain-high">That never happened</a>. And now that ExxonMobil has the keys to our national oil treasure, they are begging for the chance to sell it to export markets that will yield them a higher profit. </p>
<p>All this is taking place while <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/christian-group-parrots-big-oils-talking-points-more-oil-drilling-federal">Big Oil's parrots</a> in the media are <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-poorly-timed-push-drilling">still pushing</a> for <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/1872571-oil-booming-despite-federal-government">even more domestic oil drilling</a>. <br />
The leaders of both major political parties in the United States support increased oil drilling, which only serves to benefit the interests of the dirty energy industry. In fact, during a debate from last year's presidential election, President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney got into a heated debate about whose policies would lead to even more drilling. Take a look:<br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DesCxfnVPIw" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />
And who could forget this gem from former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, complete with the real facts about domestic oil drilling:<br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" scrolling="no" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/seXMIHgMFj8" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />
Lowering the price at the pump for American consumers was never the goal of oil companies like ExxonMobil. It never will be, either. <br /><br />
Oil industry fat cats are focused on their own retirement plans, not yours. And they’re doing a great job of sewing those golden parachutes for themselves at our expense.<br /><br />
We should probably not hasten their success by letting more American oil go to the highest bidder. After all, wasn't this supposed to be about securing our families' energy future?</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7697';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7697"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/opec">OPEC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/640">exxon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1106">Congress</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/wall-street-journal">wall street journal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5775">Oil Drilling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6502">Prices</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7372">export</a></div></div></div>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins7697 at http://www.desmogblog.com